 Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that education failed to learn the lesson of COVID-19 or slightly modified education learned the wrong lesson. And by education I mean the teachers and their institutions and their approaches towards teaching more precisely towards content delivery. Before Corona, the central method of content delivery was frontal. It took place at a particular time, in a particular place, with a teacher-defined content delivery tempo and one size fits all content material. And the role of the teacher was that of a caretaker of knowledge or as the American pedagogist Alison King pointed out in 1991, that of a sage on the stage. This method, which I'm realizing now, is referred to as synchronous in-class teaching. This teaching method had come under attack long before Corona. The reason is simple. With the increasing sophistication of the internet, professional online content ready for self-acquisition became a reasonable 21st century alternative for content delivery. With the consequence that the teacher role would have to change to that of a guide on the side. Has anyone in the audience been part of such a scenario before Corona? Probably not. So by 2020 the teachers' mindsets had shown not to be ready for this new teaching role and method. Instead of using digital content and embarking on inverted digital scenarios of content delivery, they stuck to their old frontal in-class content delivery method and remained the sage on the stage. However, with the arrival of the virus, this already outdated method could no longer be used. The classrooms were closed. Lacking any digital alternatives, the synchronous in-class teaching method was replaced by a technical solution. The synchronous distance teaching method. From sage on the stage to sage in front of a webcam. And here I am now in a video conference. Oh, not only the teacher's position changed but also the dress code. Now I could wear jogging trousers and no one would take notice. This teaching method, which the tactician soon referred to as emergency remote teaching and which never had received any support apart from scalability and cost effectiveness in adult education, had for a long time been rejected as a suitable model of 21st century education. By the way, has anyone in the audience ever thought about using emergency remote teaching that is video conferencing for content delivery before corona? The main problem of this method is the lack of interaction. In video conferences, one can hardly assess the listener's emotions. The target group is visible only partly. And furthermore, teachers have to concentrate not only on their teaching material but also on technology. Can you hear me? Can you see my face? Can you see my presentation? Oh, Mike, would you please switch off your microphone? These became new discourse markers of this scenario. But instead of acknowledging the emergency label and abandoning this method as soon as possible, the institutions made it their regular method and even called it online teaching. A term that had been in use for more than a decade but in different contexts though. Recently in a post on Twitter I addressed an institution in Germany as follows. Please do not call it online teaching if you mean synchronous distance teaching, that is video conference. Their answer, we mean online teaching as a generic term for the great variety of virtual knowledge transfer. I asked back, can you provide examples of this great variety? I never received an answer. In other words, the institutions fool themselves and even more so the public and the media who readily believe that this is a new digital teaching method. Well, and after Corona, if there is an after, the vast majority of institutions and teachers now want to combine the two methods of frontal teaching. The outdated frontal in class content delivery and the deductically even worse frontal method of synchronous distance teaching. And they created a new label for this combination, hybrid teaching. Not only for me as a linguist, this is a euphemistic label that combines a model we no longer want and a model we never wanted before. If that's the standard of 21st century post Corona teaching then, good night. So teachers largely fail to learn the lessons from COVID-19. Only a minority change their teaching methods. The majority still delivers content in lecture halls to students sitting in old architectures or to students sitting in video conferences. Let me finally say something about assessment which has always been part of teaching and learning for me. Has it changed? Yes, of course. With the institutions in a lockdown, new examination procedures had to be developed. No problem for written term papers. They could simply be uploaded to the learning management systems from home. Problems emerged for electronic exams. The main question was now, how can we avoid cheating and avoid using our daily sources during an exam? Again, the solution was a technical one. Proctoring became the new magic word. But isn't it ridiculous to forbid the use of knowledge sources during an exam where we normally use these sources 24 hours and 7 days a week? But for an exam, we are not allowed to get access to these sources. Shouldn't we change our approaches towards exam and consequently to their content and structure? Competence-oriented tasks and not mere knowledge questioning would have been necessary. But until today, only few institutions have come up with new solutions such as open book exams. For most institutions, exams have remained what they had been. Mere knowledge tests with an emergency technical solution proctoring with the main consequence that the students had to keep their rooms clean. So assessment did change but into a completely wrong direction. Ladies and gentlemen, 7 years ago in one of my monographs I quoted Shirley Thilkman, the former president of Princeton University, who said in an interview in 2014, if Woodruff Wilson, the former United States president 100 years ago, were to walk into one of our classrooms today, that is in 2014, he wouldn't notice much of a difference from what was common in his time 100 years ago with the exception of PowerPoint. This message can easily be adapted to the current situation. The lecture halls are still there, the architectures are still there, PowerPoint is still there and well, there may be some additions such as interactive whiteboards and other technologies such as a camera. But that's it. Oh, I forgot one thing. The premise that deductics must drive technology had been reversed to something we never wanted. Now technology clearly drives deductic. What a terrible step backwards. In other words, we have hardly learned from COVID-19, if at all, we learned the wrong thing. But I'm optimistic, as I've always had been, there is still time to change our minds. Thanks for your attention.